UN Human Wrongs Council

Could they distinguish between a democratic state and a terrorist entity? Clearly not.

October 16, 2009 -- Some votes are eminently forgettable. Others are not.

Today's vote in the mistakenly-named UN Human Rights Council is the latter. Although denunciations of Israel have become commonplace in the Council, this vote provides a window into the souls of those 47 member states that currently belong to this Geneva-based body, and what we see will be long remembered.

In effect, the countries were asked a rather simple set of questions.

Could they distinguish between a democratic state, Israel, and a terrorist entity, Hamas?

Could they recall that one nation, Israel, had left Gaza completely in 2005, while another group, Hamas, had seized control two years later, ousting the Palestinian Authority and strengthening ties with terrorist-funding, weapons-supplying Iran?

Could they recognize the legitimate right of a nation, Israel, to self-defense against a non-state actor, Hamas, that openly declares a desire to obliterate it?

Could they differentiate between the arsonist in the conflict, Hamas, and the firefighter, Israel?

Could they grasp the inherent challenge for a military, in this case Israel's, to uproot a terrorist infrastructure, that of Hamas, which had deeply embedded itself in a civilian population?"

Could they acknowledge what was obvious to a top British military officer, Colonel Richard Kemp, that one party to the conflict, Israel, had gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties?

Click below to watch video of Colonel Kemp.

Could they admit that the UN Human Rights Council was so viscerally anti-Israel, as evidenced by the stunning fact that 80 percent of its resolutions adopted over the past three years have focused on Israel alone, that it could not be deemed an objective body?

Could they recognize that the mandate of Judge Richard Goldstone and his three colleagues, including one who had publicly convicted Israel before joining the group, was inherently biased, charged with investigating what were already deemed to be Israeli "war crimes," while ignoring the thousands of Hamas missile and mortar attacks that preceded Israel's entry into Gaza?

And could they accept that the resolution before them spoke only of Israel, not of Hamas?

The verdict is now in.

Twenty-five countries voted for the resolution.

In most cases, there were no surprises.

All the members of the Arab League and most of the Organization of the Islamic Conference voted in lockstep to condemn Israel. No news there.

And the worst offenders against human rights, quite naturally, supported the resolution, happy to have attention once again deflected from their own shameful records. Again, no news there.

But there were a few unhappy surprises, particularly Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

As democratic countries, they should have known better. Was there more to gain by opposing Israel than supporting it, or, at the very least, abstaining? Or were they motivated by some fanciful notion of human rights in the abstract that was completely detached from the reality on the ground thousands of miles away in the Middle East?

Then there were the six countries - Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States - that stood up to the mob and voted against the resolution. Their moral clarity and political principle were on display. They deserve appreciation and recognition.

We should remember these six countries, just as we recall those that stood up to the herd mentality in Geneva at the so-called Durban II conference in April which similarly singled out Israel for denunciation--Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States.

And then there are the other 16 countries that did not vote in favor of the resolution, some abstaining, others absenting themselves.

In a multilateral setting, those actions can at times be acts of bravery. Not always, however.

It was regrettable that Britain and France, with their profound understanding of Middle Eastern realities, were not in the hall to cast a "no" vote. They should have been.

On the other hand, kudos to Mexico and Uruguay, the only Latin American countries on the Human Rights Council not to vote in favor.

And it was gratifying to see several African nations - Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Gabon - break group ranks and not endorse a one-sided resolution that even Richard Goldstone himself condemned today for its inherent unfairness.

Courage and principle are always in short supply.

When they're on display, as several countries demonstrated in Geneva, they should be acknowledged. But when they are overridden, and injustice and expediency become norms of the day, we must speak out loud and clear.

Visitor Comments: 8

(8)
sally,
March 17, 2011 3:05 AM

Brazil and Argentina's reaction

In the case of these 2 countries, we must note that both have significant and affluent arab communities, and also easily bought governments. Wouldnt be surprised if Iranian money is used for these purposes.

(7)
Anonymous,
October 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Goldstone is a quintessential example of injustice, a traitor to his own people, roots and heritage. He has given the green light to the enemies of Israel to jump on his bandwagon, pushing his personal bias as factual information. He had better have a good defense lawyer when he is judged in the heavens. What a disgrace to his people, religion and G-d that this man has joined forces with the enemy. I feel sorry for his soulas he has truly maligned not only Israel but himself. He has no guts, a low self esteem and if this is his way of achieving honor, how pathetic.

(6)
Anonymous,
October 20, 2009 3:42 AM

I am writing from Brazil. During the war in Gaza, Brazillian government representatives put out an official note relaying the government party´s opinion on the war. The note was shocking, calling Israel terrorists, and condemning them for the war while totally ignoring Hamas and its place in the war. The jewish community went up in arms. Letters of indignation from Jewish representatives and a meek excuse from a few members of the government was all that came out of this ugly story. A few months later, the president had alredy confirmed his intentions to receive Ahmadinejad in the country (the trip was cancelled in the last minute by Ahmadinejad - not because our president got any sense knocked into his head). When you follow the trend that goes on in the country, this UN resolution really comes as no surprise at all.

(5)
Yak Fatzko,
October 19, 2009 11:57 AM

Pharao's advisors - courage and cowardice.

Bilaam - voted to to destroy the Jews. Iyov (Job) abstained. Yisro (Jethro) - voted to let the Jews live
What happened to them?
Bilaam (the condemner) went on to become powerful for a time but was then obliterated by Moses and his very evil designs were used by God to praise God and Israel.
Job was tested severely with tremendous suffering.
Yisro had to flee for his life - but later became the honored witness to God's revelation at Sinai, the father-in-law of Moses and immortalized in the Torah with the section containing the Revelation named for him!

(4)
manugw,
October 18, 2009 6:35 PM

World media is in a way guilty

If you read the world media always "Israel attacks in response to..." (Israel never defends itself) and in respect of the Gaza crisis, they never mention the fact that" Israel left the strip in 2005"

(3)
Alfred Biegel,
October 18, 2009 6:11 PM

Very well written! Judicious

Superb and judicios summary!

(2)
bob costrell,
October 18, 2009 5:53 PM

India

The most troublesome vote was cast by India, in favor of the Goldstone report. Long a partner with Israel and the West in the fight against terrorism, this was a very puzzling disappointment.

(1)
Bobby5000,
October 18, 2009 10:41 AM

Why Mexico voted for Israel

Let's be clear, Mexico was not a voice of conscience or justice. Some years ago on I believe the Zionism is racism resolution, Mexico voted to condemn Israel. Guess what, Hadassah decided to cancel their convention in Acapulco, and other groups did the same. Shortly thereafter, Mexico explained the vote was an error.

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...